The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Original Article
Volume 332:345-350 February 9, 1995 Number 6
NextNext

A Comparison of Four Methods of Weaning Patients from Mechanical Ventilation
Andrés Esteban, M.D., Ph.D., Fernando Frutos, M.D., Martin J. Tobin, M.D., Inmaculada Alía, M.D., José F. Solsona, M.D., Valverdú Valverdu, M.D., Rafael Fernández, M.D., Miguel A. de la Cal, M.D., Salvador Benito, M.D., Ph.D., Roser Tomás, M.D., Demetrio Carriedo, M.D., Santiago Macías, M.D., Jesús Blanco, M.D., for The Spanish Lung Failure Collaborative Group

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Weaning patients from mechanical ventilation is an important problem in intensive care units. Weaning is usually conducted in an empirical manner, and a standardized approach has not been developed.

Methods We carried out a prospective, randomized, multicenter study involving 546 patients who had received mechanical ventilation for a mean (±SD) of 7.5±6.1 days and who were considered by their physicians to be ready for weaning. One hundred thirty patients had respiratory distress during a two-hour trial of spontaneous breathing. These patients were randomly assigned to undergo one of four weaning techniques: intermittent mandatory ventilation, in which the ventilator rate was initially set at a mean (±SD) of 10.0±2.2 breaths per minute and then decreased, if possible, at least twice a day, usually by 2 to 4 breaths per minute (29 patients); pressure-support ventilation, in which pressure support was initially set at 18.0±6.1 cm of water and then reduced, if possible, by 2 to 4 cm of water at least twice a day (37 patients); intermittent trials of spontaneous breathing, conducted two or more times a day if possible (33 patients); or a once-daily trial of spontaneous breathing (31 patients). Standardized protocols were followed for each technique.

Results The median duration of weaning was 5 days for intermittent mandatory ventilation (first quartile, 3 days; third quartile, 11 days), 4 days for pressure-support ventilation (2 and 12 days, respectively), 3 days for intermittent (multiple) trials of spontaneous breathing (2 and 6 days, respectively), and 3 days for a once-daily trial of spontaneous breathing (1 and 6 days, respectively). After adjustment for other covariates, the rate of successful weaning was higher with a once-daily trial of spontaneous breathing than with intermittent mandatory ventilation (rate ratio, 2.83; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.36 to 5.89; P<0.006) or pressure-support ventilation (rate ratio, 2.05; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.04 to 4.04; P<0.04). There was no significant difference in the rate of success between once-daily trials and multiple trials of spontaneous breathing.

Conclusions A once-daily trial of spontaneous breathing led to extubation about three times more quickly than intermittent mandatory ventilation and about twice as quickly as pressure-support ventilation. multiple daily trials of spontaneous breathing were equally successful.


Source Information

From the Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid (A.E., F.F., I.A., M.A.C.); Loyola University, Chicago, and Hines Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Ill. (M.J.T.); Hospital del Mar (J.F.S.) and Hospital Santa Creu i Sant Pau (I.V., S.B.), Barcelona, Spain; Hospital Parc Tauli, Sabadell, Spain (R.F.); Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain (R.T.); Complejo Hospitalario de León, León, Spain (D.C.); Hospital General de Segovia, Segovia, Spain (S.M.); and Hospital del Río Ortega, Valladolid, Spain (J.B.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Esteban at the Servicio de Cuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Ctra. de Toledo km 12'500, 28905 Getafe, Madrid, Spain.

Full Text of this Article


This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.